Skip to main content

About your Search

English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
at damage control. u.n. ambassador susan rice's trip to capitol hill, she and the acting cia director, michael morel, meeting with republican senators john mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham, who were not pleased with what they heard. >> it is clear that the information she gave the american people was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video. it was not, and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans who are fully aware that people don't bring mortars and rocket-propelled grenades to spontaneous demonstrations. >> in a statement after the meeting, ambassador rice said that neither she nor anyone in the administration intended to mislead the american people. but the breaking news concerns the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting direct
back open. following a meeting with acting c.i.a. director michael morrell and u.n. ambassador susan rice who has become the focal point of the event. they emerged with their talking points unified and intact. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> i'm more troubled today knowing, having met with the acting director of the c.i.a. and ambassador rice. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> eliot: for her part, ambassador rice released a statement shortly after the meeting reiterating her defense. i quote "we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage in this process and the administration updated congress and the american people as our assessments evolved." joining us now is abc white house correspondent jake tapper, the author of the much lauded new book "the outpost." first, i want to ask you about benghazi gate. honestly die understand what the senators continue to
and close friend simply told the truth as she was permitted to tell it, what the cia gave her to say and no more. for that he charges susan rice, in the words of the new york post, being fried. political fight fans on the tabloids relish this extreme combat what should be a good person's judgment? that's my question tonight. is susan rice now a surrogate for the president, someone to take the punishment when others above her pay grade should be answering the questions, or is she accountable for going on national television knowing she can't tell the whole truth because it's classified? let's begin with senator susan collins, republican of maine. i guess it's the toughest question in the world, senator, and that is, do you believe that susan rice, the u.n. ambassador, knowingly covered up a breach of national security? >> well, let me say this, chris, our purpose is to understand the security failure in benghazi. what the administration told the american public about it. and how we can learn lessons to keep our personnel safer in the future. so that's my interest and goal in this situ
today having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice, because it is certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to all khyber were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given of the information given to the american people is wrong. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it
're even more concerned, centers around the information that the cia had just after the attack about possible involvement in the benghazi attack that killed ambassador chris stevens and those three other americans. now, ambassador rice did not make reference to this information in her talk show appearances. the unclassified talking points she used were provided by the cia, were stripped of these references to al qaeda, because the information was classified and couldn't be delivered in public. now, after the meeting, ambassador rice acknowledged those talking points turned out to be incorrect. but that she stressed she and the administration never meant to mislead the american people. and what the senators are saying is, as a cabinet member, ambassador rice is privy to this conflicting information, she should have been more discerning when she went on those talk shows, and that the secretary of state should ambassador rice be nominated needs more independent, not just held to party lines. let's take a listen to what senators graham and ayotte said yesterday after those meetings. >> b
by acting cia director michael morell who helped explain the flawed talking points rice repeated in talk show appearances days after the libya attack. in a statement rice said we certainly wish we had perfect information, as is often the case, the intelligence assessment has evolved. >> she said what she believed was true and she was under no political influence from the white house. >> reporter: republicans aren't buying that. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> reporter: rice is also defending her own potential nomination as secretary of state. the white house says the focus on rice is about washington politics. >> people are more interested in talking points from a sunday show than they are about finding out what happened in benghazi. >> reporter: that attack now a front line for a political battle on capitol hill. brian mooar, nbc news, washington. >>> elsewhere, the tampa socialite caught up in the scandal involving david petraeus is going on the offensive. after two weeks of silence, kelley's lawyer has released e-mail
suggesting it was sparked by a spontaneous protest accompanied by acting cia director michael morell, rice explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our questio
the unclassified version of the report she was given by the cia? then that would have been criticized. >> you're unfit because you're imparting secrets. >> exactly. >> rice was able to win over someone, joe lieberman. take a listen. >> i would not feel that her appearances and anything she said on those sunday morning talk shows september 16th would disqualify her for appointment to any other office. >> leishman in the context, he's retiring, he's not going to be around to vote on this. but is he signaling for other democrats basically that she has a clear path if her name does come up for nomination? >> i think that's right. joe lieberman is conservative, a hawk, respected by some senators on foreign policy issues. there may be three republican senators who don't like her, another 97 who have votes, the house members who have been campaigning against her don't have votes. something chip said, it would be weird or odd for this process to be playing out if she is not going to be nominated as secretary of state. chip, it shows i think a real political premise on your part, and i think unfortuna
of the cia and ambassador rice. clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong, in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. >> drunk driving -- >> oh, thank you, mike. for sharing that. so ambassador rice -- >> what was that? john heilemann, what did we just say? >> i made a mistake. >> what did we just say and how did they pull kelly ayotte into this trifecta after lieberman starts running for the doors because lieberman is now fine. >> they need a third amigo at all times. >> so -- >> now they have -- now two of the three are women -- now at least one of the three are women. look, they're trying to recover from the -- >> all right, so andrea mitchell, please tell us what you think is going on here. >> well, i certainly do think that there is a proxy fight going on here. i'm not exactly sure what the dynamic is but mccain and graham said they were backing off the ledge so she goes up there thinking it's going to be smoothed over as her, you know, side man she's got the acting director of the cia, mike morale who is widely beli
by the director of the cia, i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said. >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. while we certainly wish we had >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. joining me now, msnbc's karen finney and howard fineman. howard, what is your understanding of how these meetings actually went today? we got a very little by way of actual reports on what went on there. you've got lindsey graham trying to say something happened in this meeting to make the situation worse. what could that have been? >> well, from talking to a top official in the white house and to senator mccain, behind closed doors, the meeting wasn't as contentious as those statements after ward made it sound. at least as regard to ambassador rice. i think both sides agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the timeline of what happened in benghazi. about the state of knowledge at the time, about security protections and so forth, but as far as holding ambassador rice personal
people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for administration. they pulled the same stunt. >> dana: i think she was failed by people around her. president obama should be mad at him. rather than be mad at senators. is he not concerned they got it wrong? purposefully so? >> brian
. then they put out a statement the essence of it seems to be that acting c.i.a. director michael morrell said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all o
that killed four americans. >> a very candid discussion with the director of the cia. we are significantly troubled by many the answers we got. the evidence was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulates. whether ambassador rice was informed sufficiently is a correct depiction of the events that took place. but the intervention was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration. it was not, and there was compelling evidence that the time that that was not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans. mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were not spontaneous demonstrations. >> i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, -- in real time [indiscernible] anybody looking at the threat in libya, it would jump out at you. i am disappointed in our intelligence community. with a little bit of inquiring and curiosity, and think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a disturbance that turned into a riot, at the end of the day, we are going to get to the bottom of this.
director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions i have and one of the questions that i didn't feel i got a satisfactory answer to, which is if you knew that even though the classified version, obviously, had references to al qaeda in it being involved or individuals with ties to al qaeda involved in it, how could you not know when you go on every sunday show and not include that fact that it would leave a very different impression to the american people, pa
that. then they call back later and say, forget that, it was us, it was the cia. >> it's like the keystone cops. in the wizard of oz goes the scarecrow goes like this. which way did it go. each pointing in another direction. whether it's the keystone cops and it's shear incompetence, or something else is going on here to me as an american it's not -- we don't even knotphao*eub was e f.b.i. wasn't on site for three weeks. megyn: great to see you. dick durbin will talk about income dave repbgsin differentials in this country. we'll talk about it. megyn: some are calling it the scariest prank ever but it also may be the funnist. however, in between the laughs and the gasps are horror there is a real question about whether this brazilian tv show crossed a legal line with its ghost in an elevator prank. watch. ♪ [screaming] [laughter] megyn: everyone here thinks it's funny, but the question is, is it legal? there could be potential liability here, and we will debate it in today's "kelly's court," i'm taking your tweets on it, follow me@megyn kelly in between now and the court. th
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)